For those interested, here is one of the customs documents the politico article is based on:
https://importgenius.s3.amazonaws.com/Body+Armor+Data.pdf
Note that the last shipment was 12/31/22 (!!!) and that this is part of a dataset that has not yet been made more broadly available by Import Genius, leading me to believe that their datasets are in arrears and that it will be highly likely for January imports to turn up once they have 2023 data in hand.
Go buy that YES!
@footgun Yes, that was body armor. Here are the hunting rifles:
https://importgenius.s3.amazonaws.com/Tecnom.pdf
May & June. The China North data line is missing the country of origin...oops, hope they didn't get fined for that.
Don't know about the "drone parts" though.
Would the body armor not qualify as "arms" for the purposes of this question?
@AlQuinn I was thinking lethal arms particularly, as in the link in the description you could see that the “red line” of concern is lethal arms.
Philosophically I agree that body armour can probably help keep the aggression going as well as rifles. But weapons that kill and harm will be a different optics and consequences. Hence it also means that China is willing to accept them and commit to another level.
I think this discussion also shows the difficulty of writing good forecast question:
To attract trader and attention, it helps that the question is brief, general and quickly written after key event
To avoid ambiguity, it helps that the question is specific, detailed, and avoid edge case
For example, this question could well be split into several, each regarding tank/missile/gun, but then each will have much less liquidity and hence less accurate and meaningful. A general question is a better schelling point.
I don’t have a silver bullet for this. Hence I think it is important to keep the discussion civic and generally focus on truth-finding rather than word-playing.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/16/chinese-rifles-body-armor-russia-ukraine-00087398
Chinese companies, including one connected to the government in Beijing, have sent Russian entities 1,000 assault rifles and other equipment that could be used for military purposes, including drone parts and body armor, according to trade and customs data obtained by POLITICO.
@RobertCousineau Not necessarily "supplying arms to Russia in Ukraine". But I was always leery of this market because of the vague resolution criteria, so closing out for now with a nice profit (**self-satisfied Al Quinn noises**)
@xyz I just want to make sure everyone is done panic-selling NO and buying YES to point out that, regardless of whether or not any arms shipments from China qualify due to (you could argue) the fungible nature of weaponry, this article points to shipments occurring June-December of 2022; however the resolution of this question specifically requires such shipments during 2023. It could be the customs data series was through only 2022 and we have no information yet on 2023 activity, or it could be that such activity was stopped last year.
Anyway, getting my beak wet again on this at this more attractive price!
@AlQuinn very fair point. I've gone ahead and re-purchased some shares.
@AlQuinn I find it extremely difficult to believe that this didn't continue into 2023 with even a single chinese firm, but unclear resolution criteria is unclear.
@SemioticRivalry Exactly my thoughts. If one bullet to anywhere in Russia is YES, then my reentry was stupid. If clear evidence of a pattern of deadly weapons from China flowing into the Ukraine theater is YES, then I'm happy with holding some NO. I did well during the Oscars so I'm fine with losing 30M on this.
Folks, good discussion. Few points from me:
I will not resolve this market suddenly either way and I intend to have a one-week grace period for us to discuss. So feel free provide argument and counter argument.
The supplement of concern has to happened during 2023. It can be before market creation (e.g. Jan 2023). This will make the question a better reference point in case we need to reask next year.
As for whether the weapons end up in the Ukraine theatre, I think it is not relevant. If China supplies arms to Russia, but it was instead used to quell unrest, it is still a “yes”. Russia is a war economy now.
If the war ended, and after that point China supplies arm, then this question should be “No”
I am open to change my mind regarding the above so feel free to discuss.
US working on a joint plan with the G7 to sanction China if they do this.
So what are people thinking will be the US (and European) response if this happens? China is good at pursuing dumb foreign policy, but this going YES would be retarded even by their standards. This doesn't seem like the sort of drama China needs right now, and I don't see why they would risk so much for a few tens or hundreds of millions in revenue.
Alternatively, are people thinking it's possible this resolves technically as YES without the arms in question being of actual significance in Ukraine?
@AlQuinn
“For us, it would be a red line in our relationship. He told me they’re not going to do it, that they do not plan to do it. But we remain vigilant,” Borrell said.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3210885/red-line-europe-warns-china-not-send-weapons-russia
Probably not wise for China to become an enemy of 30% of their total trade balance and 85% of their total trade surplus in order to appease 3% of their trade.
Related markets
Related markets